Kiwi plant named ‘Tsechelidis’

ABSTRACT

A new and distinctive variety of the kiwi plant,  Actinidia deliciosa , named ‘Tsechelidis’ is described. The new variety is characterized by very large oblong fruit covered with downy hairs, and very broad ovate leaves having acuminate apexes, among other features. The size and uniformity of the fruit provide significantly higher yield than other known varieties of kiwi.

Latin name of the genus and species of the plant claimed:

Actinidia deliciosa.

Variety denomination: ‘Tsechelidis’.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

Kiwi plants have been cultivated outside their native China for over onehundred years. Known varieties or cultivars include Hayward, Meteor,Hort16A, Abbott, Tomua, Jade Moon, Bruno, Monty, Matua and Kuimi.Hayward is the most popular variety worldwide. Kiwi plants are nowcommercially grown in New Zealand, Italy, Chile, France, Greece, Japan,China and the United States.

Kiwi plants are commercially grown for their oblong or oval fruit,having brown skin covered in short hairs. The flesh, firm until fullyripe, is glistening, bright green or sometimes yellow, brownish oroff-white, except for the white, succulent center from which radiatemany fine, pale lines. Between these lines are scattered minutedark-purple or nearly black seeds, unnoticeable in eating.

Kiwi plants may be propagated by seed, grafting or cutting.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION

The present invention relates to a new and distinctive kiwi varietycharacterized by very large, oblong fruit covered with downy hairs, andvery broad ovate leaves having acuminate apexes, among other features.The size and uniformity of the fruit provide significantly higher yieldthan other known varieties of kiwi. The new variety designated‘Tsechelidis’ was derived from the ‘Hayward’ variety in Episkopi,Imathia, Greece and has been asexually reproduced by cutting, amongother methods.

‘Tsechelidis’ is further distinguished by the nutritionalcharacteristics of the fruit as well as the qualitative characteristics.Furthermore, a molecular genetic analysis distinguishes ‘Tsechelidis’from ‘Hayward’ as indicated by several polymorphisms in known alleles.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS

The accompanying color photographs of ‘Tsechelidis’ show the new varietyas well as comparisons of the ‘Tsechelidis’ variety to the ‘Hayward’variety.

FIG. 1 shows a typical leaf of ‘Tsechelidis’.

FIG. 2 shows typical flowers of ‘Tsechelidis’.

FIG. 3 shows a typical flower of ‘Tsechelidis’ as compared to a typicalflower of ‘Hayward’.

FIG. 4 shows typical fruit of ‘Tsechelidis’ on the vine.

FIG. 5 shows typical fruit of ‘Tsechelidis’ on the vine as compared totypical fruit of ‘Hayward’ on the vine.

FIG. 6 shows typical fruit of ‘Tsechelidis’ with stems attached.

FIG. 7 shows a cross-section and a stylar end view of a typical fruit of‘Tsechelidis’

FIG. 8 shows a cross-section and a side view of a typical fruit of‘Tsechelidis’.

FIG. 9 shows typical fruit of ‘Tscehelidis’ as compared to typical fruitof ‘Hayward’.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF THE INVENTION

The present invention is a new and distinct variety of Actinidiadeliciosa plants having the several characteristics that distinguish thevariety from other kiwi plants, particularly the ‘Hayward’ variety.

The new variety ‘Tsechelidis’ was discovered in Episkopi, Imathia,Greece, when the inventor planted seeds from selected Hayward plantswith the purpose of obtaining a group of male plants. From this originalgroup of twenty plants, a single plant was identified as female. Duringits first harvest in 1994, the female plant bore unusually large fruitas compared to plants of the ‘Hayward’ variety. The female plant wasmonitored for the next two harvests and consistently bore the unusuallylarge fruit, as well as other features which distinguished it from‘Hayward’. The female plant was then used to propagate the ‘Tseehelidis’variety by asexual reproduction beginning in 1996.

The ‘Tsechelidis’ variety has been continuously asexually reproduced bycuttings from 1996 through 2007. The distinguishing characteristics ofthe variety continue to run true in the propagated plants, as shown byabout 1000 plants covering ½ hectare. Furthermore, no changes haveappeared in the new variety when grafted on ‘Hayward’. In addition tocuttings, the new variety can be asexually reproduced by grafting torootstocks of A. deliciosa.

Male pollenizers suitable for ‘Tsechelidis’ may include, but are notlimited to, ‘Mania’. At this time the ‘Tsechelidis’ variety is beingtested for self-pollenization by the University of Volvos, Greece.According to preliminary results, ‘Tsechelidis’ is characterized by upto 75% self-pollenization as compared to 2% for ‘Hayward’.

‘Tsechelidis’ should be cultivated in areas that are not affected byspring frost. Temperatures of less than −2° C. will damage the tendershoots of the plant and suspending growth or reduce the setting process.Also, frost in early autumn to late October may damage fruit situated onthe vine. The presence of strong wind, particularly in May, may resultin considerable decrease of flowers borne by the plant.

Distinguishing Characteristics from Known Varieties

The following is a comparison of the fruit production an orchard of‘Tsechelidis’ as compared with cultivated ‘Hayward’ situated in the areaof Episkopi-Anthemion in the prefecture of Imathia, Greece. At the timeof this study (2006) the ‘Tsechelidis’ orchard was five years old.

The listed observations, measurements and assessments were made in thefollowing categories:

-   -   1. Plant and fruit characteristics    -   2. Quantitative production data (yield, number of fruits/plants        and average fruit weight).    -   3. Level of nutritional elements in leaves and fruit.    -   4. Qualitative fruit characteristics (resistance to pressure,        pH, soluble solids (° Brix), vitamin C, acids, sugars, Thiault        index and dry matter).    -   5. Plant/Fruit disease and pest resistance/susceptibility        1. Plant and Fruit Characteristics:

The chart below describes the physical differences between ‘Tsechelidis’and the known ‘Hayward’ variety. The Horticultural terminology appliedbelow is used in accordance with revised UPOV guidelines for kiwi (TestGuidelines—TG/98/6 —Actinidia 2001-04-04, available athttp://www.upov.int/en/publications/tg-rom/tg098/tg_98_6. pdf).

TABLE 1 UPOV Characteristics for comparison of varieties ‘HAYWARD’‘TSECHELIDIS’ Plant: vigor Medium Strong Leaf blade: shape Broad ovateVery broad ovate Leaf blade: shape of apex Acute Acuminate Leaf blade:green color of Medium Dark upper side Petal: curvature of apex StronglyVery strongly expressed expressed Fruit: size Large Very large Fruit:general shape Ellipsoid Oblong Fruit: general shape of stylar FlatBetween slightly end depressed and flat Fruit: shape of shoulder atRounded Squared stalk end Fruit: type of hairiness Hirsute Downy Time ofbeginning of Late Medium flowering

The shoots of ‘Tsechelidis’ grow more vigorously than ‘Hayward’, thoughthere is no difference with respect to resilience against pest anddiseases. The fruits of ‘Tsechelidis’ are more oblong than ‘Hayward’(the ratio of fruit length/width is 1.41 and 1.24 respectively).Furthermore, the fruits of ‘Tsechelidis’ are larger and more uniform insize. ‘Tsechelidis’ do no require thinning absent defective fruit,unlike ‘Hayward’. Additionally, due to the larger fruit size, anydecrease that may be caused by low temperatures during the floweringseason or poor pollination of the fruits will not affect themarketability of the fruits, in contrast with ‘Hayward’.

In addition to the distinguishing features between ‘Tsechelidis’ and‘Hayward’ listed above, the following characteristics were identified bythe European Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO). Again theterminology is presented according to the revised UPOV guidelines forkiwi (Test Guidelines—TG/98/6—Actinidia 2001-04-04, available athttp://www.upov.int/en/publications/tg-rom/tg098/tg_98_6.pdf). The UPOVcharacteristics are botanical terms known in the art for descriptionplant varieties.

TABLE 2 UPOV State of No. Characteristics Expression 5 Young shoot:Hairiness present 6 Young shoot: Density of hair medium 7 Young shoot:Type of hairiness hirsute 8 Young shoot: Anthocyanin coloration ofmedium growing tip 9 Stem: Thickness medium 11 Stem: Roughness of barkmedium-rough 12 Stem: Hairiness present 13 Stem: Density of hair medium14 Stem: Type of hairiness bristly 15 Stem: Size of lenticels medium 16Stem: Number of lenticels medium 19 Stem: Size of bud support small tomedium 20 Stem: Profile of proximal face of bud convex support (ifsloping) 21 Stem: Presence of bud cover present 22 Stem: Size of hole inbud cover medium 23 Stem: Leaf sear shallow 26 Leaf blade: Shape verybroad ovate 27 Leaf blade: Shape of apex acuminate 28 Leaf blade:Arrangement of basal lobes slightly apart 29 Leaf blade: Hair on upperside medium 30 Leaf blade: Hair on lower side medium 31 Leaf blade:Puckering/Blistering on medium upper side 34 Leaf blade: Presence ofvariegation absent 37 Leaf: Ratio petiole length/blade length large 38Petiole: Density of hair medium-dense 39 Petiole: Anthocyanin colorationon medium tipper side 40 Flower bud: anthocyanin coloration of mediumprotruding petal end 41 Inflorescence: Predominant number of one flowers42 Flower stalk: Length medium-long 43 Flower stalk: Density of hairmedium 44 Flower stalk: Length of hair medium 45 Flower: Number ofsepals 6 47 Sepal: Density of hair sparse 48 Sepal: Length of hairmedium-short 49 Flower: Diameter very large 50 Flower: Arrangement ofpetals (viewed overlapping from beneath) 51 Petal: Curvature of apexstrongly expressed 52 Petal: Type of coloration (adaxial side) singlecolored 54 Petal: Different shades of color absent 60 Styles: Numbermany 62 Styles: Attitude erect and horizontal 63 Fruit: Size very large64 Fruit: General shape oblong 65 Fruit: Shape in cross-section (atmedian) elliptic 66 Fruit: General shape at stylar end slight depressedand flat 67 Fruit: Presence of calyx ring weakly expressed 68 Fruit:Shape of shoulder at stalk end squared 69 Fruit: Length of stalk long 70Fruit: Ratio stalk length/fruit length large 71 Fruit: Persistence ofsepals present 72 Fruit: Conspicuousness of lenticels on skininconspicuous 74 Fruit: Hairiness of skin present 75 Fruit: Density ofhair medium 76 Fruit: Type of hairiness downy 77 Fruit: Distribution ofhairs evenly spread 79 Fruit: Adherence of hair to skin medium-strong(when rubbed) 84 Fruit: Diameter of core relative to fruit medium tolarge 85 Fruit: General shape of core (in cross transverse ellipticsection) 86 Fruit: Fluting of core (in cross section) present 88 Fruit:Sweetness medium-low 89 Fruit: Acidity medium 90 Time of vegetative budburst medium 91 Time of beginning flowering medium-late 92 Time ofmaturity for harvest medium-late

In addition to the above listed characteristics set forth according tothe UPOV guidelines, the following measurements are typical of‘Tsehedilids.’ The typical size of the leaves includes a stalk length of12–14 cm, a length from stalk to apex of 18–20 cm and a leaf width of16-18 cm. The typical flower diameter is 5–7 cm. The flowers aretypically characterized by 5-6 sepals, 6-8 petals and 35-45 styles. Thestalk length of the flowers typically ranges from 6–9 cm.

With regards to the fruit, the fruit length typically averages about7.96 cm. The fruit width typically ranges from about 5.15 cm (smallwidth) to about 5.71 cm (large width). The fruit weight typically rangesfrom 150-170 g.

The following color description has been provided according to theR.H.S. Colour Chart.

TABLE 3 Characteristic Botanical Features Color according to RHS ColourChart Stem: Color of shoot on sunny side 178A-Greyed-Red Group Stem:Color of lenticels 177C-Greyed-Orange Group Leaf blade: Color of upperside 137B-Green Group Leaf blade: Color of lower side 146C-YelIow-GreenGroup Sepal: General color 200D-Brown Group Petal: Main color on adaxialside 155D-White Group Filament: Color 155C-White Group Anther: Color13C-Yellow Group Styles: Color 158B-YelIow-White Group Fruit: Color ofskin 199A-Grey-Brown Group Fruit: Color of hairs 199D-Grey-Brown GroupFruit: Color of skin at maturity for 199A-GreyBrown Group consumptionFruit: Color of outer pericarp 141C-Green Group Fruit: Color of innerpericarp 141C-Green Group Fruit: Color of core 157D-Green-White Group2. Quantitative Production Data:

TABLE 4 ‘HAY- Significance Parameter ‘TSECHELIDIS’ WARD’ level (P) Totalnumber of fruits/plant 250 279 P > 0.05 Number of marketable 249 222 P >0.05 fruits Rate of marketable 99.6 79.6 — fruits (%) Total yield(kg/plant) 41.9 29.9 P > 0.05 Yield of marketable fruits 41.6 25.1 0.001< (kg/plant) P < 0.01 Yield of marketable fruits 99.3 83.9 — (%) Averageweight of market- 167.0 114.5 P < 0.001 able fruits (g) Average weightof non- 237.0 88.8 P > 0.001 marketable fruits (g) P > 0.05 signifies astatistically insignificant difference.

‘Tsechelidis’ has a greater density of buds in each stem than ‘Hayward’,whereby each stem, which has 13 buds, produces about 10 kg of fruit.Therefore, each ‘Tsechelidis’ tree, having about 15-18 stems, yieldsabout 140-150 kg of fruit. The high yield, and large size and uniformityof the fruit of ‘Tsechelidis’, as compared to the ‘Hayward’, aresignificant advantages, particularly with regard to reducing productioncosts. This data was taken during a harvest affected by adverse weatherduring the growing season in Imathia, Greece.

3. Level of Nutritional Elements The following is table that shows thestatistically significant differences in nutritional elements between‘Tsechelidis’ and ‘Hayward’.

TABLE 5 Parameter ‘TSECHELIDIS’ ‘HAYWARD’ Leaves: nitrogen level 1.95%2.53% Fruit skin: phosphorus 0.13% 0.08% Fruit skin: potassium 2.35%1.95% Fruit skin: magnesium 0.08% 0.06% Fruit skin: manganese 12.6 ppm8.0 ppm Fruit flesh: nitrogen 0.76% 0.95% Fruit flesh: phosphorus 0.13%0.16% Fruit flesh: manganese 10.3 ppm 6.2 ppm Fruit flesh: copper 6.79ppm 10.51 ppm Fruit flesh: proportion of 2.30 2.71 N/Ca4. Qualitative fruit characteristics The following tables show specificqualitative fruit characteristics between ‘Tsechelidis’ and ‘Hayward’.The first table lists measurements of fruit immediately after harvest.The second table lists measurements taken of fruit held in refrigeratedstorage for two months after harvest.

TABLE 6 Significance Parameter ‘TSECHELIDIS’ ‘HAYWARD’ level (P)Measurements Taken During Harvest Resistance to 23.0 27.0 0.001 <pressure (lb/in²) P < 0.01 Flesh pH 3.34 3.25 0.0l < P < 0.05 Solublesolids 7.30 6.70 P > 0.05 (°Brix)(%) Vitamin C (mg/100 79.2 37.8 P <0.00l g fresh weight) Measurements Taken During Harvest Malic acid (g/l)4.5 4.0 P > 0.05 Sugars (g/l) 62.8 57.2 0.01 < P < 0.05 Thiault index107.7 97.6 0.01 < P < 0.05 Dry matter (%) 15.30 15.82 P > 0.05

TABLE 7 Measurements Taken Two (2) Months After Harvest SignificanceParameter ‘TSECHELIDIS’ ‘HAYWARD’ level (P) Resistance to 10. 10.9 P >0.05 pressure (lb/in²) Flesh pH 3.32 3.41 P < 0.001 Soluble solids 13.613.0 P > 0.05 (°Brix) (%) Vitamin C (mg/100 80.2 38.3 P < 0.001 g freshweight) Malic acid (g/l) 4.8 4.5 P > 0.05 Sugars (g/l) 84.4 80.0 P >0.05 Thiault index 132.4 125.0 P > 0.05

Based on the above information, the following distinctions may be drawnbetween ‘Tsechelidis’ and ‘Hayward’. The fruit of ‘Tsechelidis’ ripen7-10 days earlier than ‘Hayward’, which is shown by the fruit's lowerresistance to pressure and their slight superiority in soluble solids (°Brix) during harvest. Despite the earlier ripening, the resistance topressure of ‘Tsechelidis’ after two months of refrigerated storage wasthe same as ‘Hayward’.

5. Plant/fruit disease and pest resistance/susceptibility

There is no difference between ‘Tsechelidis’ and ‘Hayward’ with respectto resilience against pest and diseases. There are no other observedcharacteristics specific to plant/fruit disease and pestresistance/susceptibility.

Molecular Genetic Analysis

A molecular genetic analysis was conducted by Dr. Athanasios Mavromatis,Professor of Genetics & Plant Breeding (University of Thessaly, Schoolof Agricultural Services) comparing ‘Tsechelidis’ with ‘Hayward’ basedon known microsatellite DNA markers using PCR. The method is recognizedas an accurate and repeatable molecular analysis for Actinidia. Huang,W.G., Cipriani, G., Morgante, M., Testolin, R. (1998) Microsatellite DNAin Actinidia chinensis: isolation, characterization, and homology inrelated species. Theor. Appl. Genet. 97 (8): 1269-1278.

The DNA analysis was performed as follows: Repeatable samples of fourgenotypes were used (commercial clones of ‘Hayward’ (one female, onemale) and ‘Tsechelidis’ (one female, one male)). Leaf samples of 0.3 gper genotype was used for DNA extraction process according to a modifiedcetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTAB) method. The extract DNA wasquantified on agarose gel by comparison with report samples (DNAmarker). The DNA quality and quantity was tested to ensure accuracy ofthe molecular genetic analysis.

Thirteen known primer pairs were used for amplifying dinucleotidetandems AG/CT and AC/GT. The primer pairs used were: UDK 96-022, UDK97-402, UDK 99-152, UDK 96-053, UDK 97-411, UDK 96-030, UDK 96-001, UDK96-037, UDK 96-034. UDK 99-168, UDK 96- 092, UDK 97-406 and UDK 97-407.The primers were developed in a bilateral European Union InternationalCooperation with Developing Countries (INCO-DC) project performed by

University of Udine, Italy; Chinese Agricultural University, BeijingChina; INRA, France; and University of Thessaly, Greece.

The sequence of all of the list primers are known and published theprior art. For example the sequences of UDK 96-001, UDK 96-022, UDK96-030, UDK 96-034, UDK 96-037, UDK 97-402, UDK 97-406, UDK 97-407 andUDK-41 1 are all published in Huang et al., Microsatellite DNA inActinidia chinesis: isolation, characterization, and homology in relatedspecies. Theor. Appl. Genet. (1998) 97: 1269-1278. UDK 96-037 a and blisted below indicate the two polymorphic loci amplified in the same gelfor the same primer UDK 96-037. The sequences of UDK 96-053 and UDK99-152 are published in Korkovelos et al. Effectiveness of SSR molecularmarkers in evaluating the phylogenetic relationships among eightActinidia species. Scientica Horticulturae 116 (2008) 305-310. UDK96-092 and UDK 99-168 are also know primers as disclosed by Korkoveloset al. Screening microsatellites for their effectiveness to identify anddifferentiate among Actinidia Genotypes. Acta Hort. 610 (2003) 357-363.

The PCR products were separated in 6% polyacrylamide gels 1.5 mm thick.Band visualization was made with silver nitrate. The results of thestudy indicated that at least seven out of 13 primer pairs werepolymorphic. Therefore, the study provides grounds for distinguishingbetween genetic material from ‘Tsechelidis’ as compared to ‘Hayward’.

The polymorphic primer pairs are described in the table below accordingto the presence and absence of alleles of the same molecular weight.

TABLE 8 DNA primer/alleles ‘TSECHELIDIS’ ‘HAYWARD’ 99-152 97-411 + −96-030   96-037a − +  96-037b + − 96-034 + − 96-092 + − 97-406 − +

The genetic difference confirmed through diverse binding patternsindicate that the ‘Tsechelidis’ variety is genetically distinct from‘Hayward’.

1. A new and distinct variety of Actinidia deliciosa plant named‘Tseehelidis’ substantially as shown and described.